Rams Officially Apply to Move to L.A.

[Tacachale]

The Chargers still have options in San Diego, and even if they do go to LA, apparently they can do so as a tennant, meaning they could move back later if a deal gets done. The Raiders have some options too, but staying in Oakland seems tied to little else but the fact that they're 3rd in line to move to LA.

[goldy21]

Apparently everyone was wowed by Kroenke's plan for a stadium because it was so well thought out. An example of that is the 100,000 expandable stadium for Super Bowls, College Football Championships, and other huge events. That is called maximizing profit.

What it says to me is that the league believed far more in the Kroenke plan than the Raiders/Chargers plan. They were willing to go with probably the most disruptive option in order to get it done, and were willing to risk losing out on their two-team solution.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/13/owners-were-blown-away-by-differences-between-inglewood-and-carson/

Kroenke had the far superior product.

"As one person who witnessed the presentations told PFT, the owners were "blown away" by Kroenke's proposal, which was presented to ownership by Rams COO Kevin Demoff.

"Stan's proposal was like watching Star Wars," the source said, adding that the Carson proposal "was like watching a home movie from the '70s."

[Tacachale]

^It really sucks that Kroenke is willing to spend a billion dollars in LA when he could have spent a fraction of that in St. Louis and gotten pretty much everything he wanted.

[funwithteeth]

Kroenke wants the money a stadium in LA will bring outside of the Rams. He's investing for the future.

[simms3]

The Chargers still have options in San Diego, and even if they do go to LA, apparently they can do so as a tennant, meaning they could move back later if a deal gets done. The Raiders have some options too, but staying in Oakland seems tied to little else but the fact that they're 3rd in line to move to LA.

^It really sucks that Kroenke is willing to spend a billion dollars in LA when he could have spent a fraction of that in St. Louis and gotten pretty much everything he wanted.

Yes and yes.  But by becoming a tenant, the Chargers will not be unlocking even half of their potential value.  Also, the value of a team isn't tied to its fan base so much anymore or the ability to get the host city to spend a little here and there or to cut deals.  The value is in sponsorships, advertisement rights, etc.  A lot of this is tied to the corporate base of a city and the city's media market, both of which are tied to great degrees to population and economic power (GDP).  Compared to LA, STL has a tiny corporate base and teeny tiny media market.  Population and economy are hardly growing to the same extent, companies aren't moving to STL, etc etc.

LA has a media market that is 2nd in size in the US (17.553 million people to NYC's 20.906 million and ahead of Chicago's 9.528 million) and a corporate base fueling the country's 2nd largest economy ($1 trillion SoCal economy).  STL's TV market is only 3.17 million people.  For comparison, Jacksonville's is 1.719 million.  Green Bay's is 1.114 million people, so that isn't likely as small as some people's preconceived notions.

Become a tenant here and your value increases.  Become an actual incorporated entity here, and your value maximizes (look at what the Clippers and Dodgers recently sold for).

Things that really help in addition to sheer size and purchasing/sponsorship power - winning games/seasons, population and economic growth

STL comparatively has little going for it.  San Diego also - growing relatively slowly and faces some of the stiffest economic headwinds in the state.

Bay Area, where Oakland is, is also a very large population center/media market (5th largest at 7.206 million, and Sacramento is another 3.783 million that swing to the Bay - Sac is a larger TV market than San Diego since it has all of northern CA) and 3rd largest economy at around $750Bn, and this whole area is the state's fastest growing area when including the 4 major metros - the central valley like Modesto and Fresno are fast becoming exurbs of the Bay Area and are the state's fastest growing cities.  These aren't the issues for the Raiders - the support and numbers for a 2nd team are there.  The issue is in the stadium and support from the city/county in dealing with promises and their end of the bargain to provide a certain level of infrastructure support.  Mark Davis hasn't helped as owner.

I think Oakland could go either way - over the course of a few years something could be worked out, or they could leave.

[FlaBoy]

The Chargers still have options in San Diego, and even if they do go to LA, apparently they can do so as a tennant, meaning they could move back later if a deal gets done. The Raiders have some options too, but staying in Oakland seems tied to little else but the fact that they're 3rd in line to move to LA.

^It really sucks that Kroenke is willing to spend a billion dollars in LA when he could have spent a fraction of that in St. Louis and gotten pretty much everything he wanted.

Yes and yes.  But by becoming a tenant, the Chargers will not be unlocking even half of their potential value.  Also, the value of a team isn't tied to its fan base so much anymore or the ability to get the host city to spend a little here and there or to cut deals.  The value is in sponsorships, advertisement rights, etc.  A lot of this is tied to the corporate base of a city and the city's media market, both of which are tied to great degrees to population and economic power (GDP).  Compared to LA, STL has a tiny corporate base and teeny tiny media market.  Population and economy are hardly growing to the same extent, companies aren't moving to STL, etc etc.

LA has a media market that is 2nd in size in the US (17.553 million people to NYC's 20.906 million and ahead of Chicago's 9.528 million) and a corporate base fueling the country's 2nd largest economy ($1 trillion SoCal economy).  STL's TV market is only 3.17 million people.  For comparison, Jacksonville's is 1.719 million.  Green Bay's is 1.114 million people, so that isn't likely as small as some people's preconceived notions.

Become a tenant here and your value increases.  Become an actual incorporated entity here, and your value maximizes (look at what the Clippers and Dodgers recently sold for).

Things that really help in addition to sheer size and purchasing/sponsorship power - winning games/seasons, population and economic growth

STL comparatively has little going for it.  San Diego also - growing relatively slowly and faces some of the stiffest economic headwinds in the state.

Bay Area, where Oakland is, is also a very large population center/media market (5th largest at 7.206 million, and Sacramento is another 3.783 million that swing to the Bay - Sac is a larger TV market than San Diego since it has all of northern CA) and 3rd largest economy at around $750Bn, and this whole area is the state's fastest growing area when including the 4 major metros - the central valley like Modesto and Fresno are fast becoming exurbs of the Bay Area and are the state's fastest growing cities.  These aren't the issues for the Raiders - the support and numbers for a 2nd team are there.  The issue is in the stadium and support from the city/county in dealing with promises and their end of the bargain to provide a certain level of infrastructure support.  Mark Davis hasn't helped as owner.

I think Oakland could go either way - over the course of a few years something could be worked out, or they could leave.

All about the corporate money. That is also why Shad Khan has a decent deal now in Jax because he is really the only show in town here. In STL, for example, you have to split that corporate base with the Cards and the Blues.

[thelakelander]

All about the corporate money.

Yes, at the end of the day, it's a business.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

All about the corporate money.

Yes, at the end of the day, it's a business.

And teams like the Jags, Buffalo, Green Bay, etc... that are in the smaller markets benefit the most from this. 

Now that the NFL is back in one of the largest (if not the largest) media markets in the country, that grows the TV package deal significantly.  The same TV money that is split 32 ways across the NFL. 

[FlaBoy]

All about the corporate money.

Yes, at the end of the day, it's a business.

And teams like the Jags, Buffalo, Green Bay, etc... that are in the smaller markets benefit the most from this. 

Now that the NFL is back in one of the largest (if not the largest) media markets in the country, that grows the TV package deal significantly.  The same TV money that is split 32 ways across the NFL.

It honestly won't grow the TV package much. Maybe the LA Rams will cut a third tier rights contract with a Fox Sports Net or whoever that brings in some revenue but the NFL pulls great ratings everywhere, with or without a team.

[vicupstate]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter

St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter

St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance

From the article, "NFL stadiums are primarily designed for one thing - eight home games a year - and don't necessarily adapt well to alternate uses."  Which is why the renovations being done to Everbank (also designed by Populous) make even more sense.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/11/18/super-bowl-100-stadium

The venue of the future, he suggests, will hit more than one need in a city: "Could the building serve a dual purpose? Integrate the community in recreation and entertainment?" Populous's predictors say yes...

[fsquid]

they could have said no.

[Todd_Parker]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter

St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance

What?!? NO WAY.  The NFL and an owner fucking over their home city via a ridiculously one-sided stadium deal, all in the interest of lining their pockets? I am absolutely shocked.  I mean, next thing I know you'll be telling me billionaire Shad Khan is fleecing the city to enrich homself at the expense of taxpayers.

I think we all know who the real victim in this relocation mess was...

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/stan-kroenke-victim/288850

The Billionaire owner!

[spuwho]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter

St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance

Another reason I think the NFL is reaching its peak earning power in the US.

[I-10east]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP?utm_source=twitter

St. Louis taxpayers on the hook for $144 million in debt and maintenance

From the article, "NFL stadiums are primarily designed for one thing - eight home games a year - and don't necessarily adapt well to alternate uses."  Which is why the renovations being done to Everbank (also designed by Populous) make even more sense.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/11/18/super-bowl-100-stadium

+100

The people that are comparing Stan Kroenke to Shad Khan are way off base. One owner is investing heavily into Everbank Field, the city, even outside the realm of football. The other owner took advantage of a bad contract that was made by an incompetent city's government; It certainly didn't help that STL basically made a more melancholy version of the Astrodome, while everyone else (JAX, CAR, TEN, HOU etc etc) were building open air stadiums/retractable roof stadiums.